For a short overview of the grotesque with recommended readings, see (Rune Graulund 2019
). As noted in this short survey, the grotesque has drawn attention from prominent modern theorists such as Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, and Mikhail Bakhtin. A short overview of European and American theories of disgust is available in (Langenberg 2017, pp. 79–81
For her methodological considerations of applying feminist criticism to premodern Buddhist texts, see (Langenberg 2017, pp. 12–17
See chapter 3, esp. ibid., pp. 77–87.
The śmaśāna section is edited in Kosambi and Gokhale, Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa, pp. 263–66 and translated in Ingalls, Anthology of Sanskrit Poetry, pp. 398–401.
Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa 1530 and Mālatīmādhava 5.16. Kosambi and Gokhale, Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa, 264, with emendation in Ingalls Anthology of Sanskrit Poetry, 464: utkṛtyokṛtya kṛttiṃ prathamam atha pṛthūcchophabhūyāṃsi māṃsāny aṅgasphikphṛṣṭhapiṇḍādyavayavasulabhāny ugrapūtīni jagdhvā/ āttasnāyvantranetraḥ prakaṭitadaśanaḥ pretaraṅkaḥ karaṅkād aṅkasthād asthisaṃsthasthapuṭagatam api kravyam avyagram atti//. Cf. Ingalls’ translation in ibid., p. 399.
The use of similar sound effects in the verses evoking the loathsome written by Kṣemīśvara, who is also featured in the same section of Vidyākara’s anthology, is discussed in (Sathaye 2010, pp. 366–67
). The Sanskrit literary theorist Daṇḍin discusses alliteration in Kāvyadarśa
1.55–60 (where harsh combinations are illustrated and discussed in 1.59–60), and he presents the quality august in Kāvyadarśa
1.80–84. See (Thakur and Jha 1957, pp. 37–40, 49–51
; Dimitrov 2002, pp. 180–83, 192–95
The three verses from Kṣemīśvara’s Caṇḍakauśika that are anthologized in the Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa (1537, 1538, and 1539) have been discussed by Sathaye along with a few other stanzas from the drama in his “The Production of Unpleasurable Rasas,” pp. 365–71. Sathaye notes the affinity between Bhavabhūti and Kṣemīśvara on the unpleasurable rasas in pp. 364–65, 366.
The English translations of Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi Bhikkhus are adopted here. See (Ñāṇamoli and Bodhi 2005, p. 951
). (Chalmers 1994, p. 90
): puna ca paraṃ bhikkhave bhikkhu imam eva kāyaṃ uddhaṃ pādatalā adho kesamatthakā tacapariyantaṃ pūraṃ nānappakārassa asucino paccavekkhati atthi imasmiṃ kāye kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco maṃsaṃ nahāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjā vakkaṃ hadayaṃ yakanaṃ kilomakaṃ pihakaṃ papphāsaṃ antaṃ antaguṇaṃ udariyaṃ karīsaṃ pittaṃ semahaṃ pubbo lohitaṃ sedo medo assu vasā kheḷo siṅghāṇikā lasikā muttan ti
(Lefmann  1977, p. 208
): karmakṣetraruhaṃ tuṣāsalilajaṃ satkāyasaṃjñīkṛtaṃ aśrusvedakaphārdramutravikṛtaṃ śoṇītabindvākulaṃ/ vastīpūyavasāsamastakarasaiḥ pūrṇaṃ tathā kilviśaiḥ nityaprasravitaṃ hy amedhyasakalaṃ durgandhanānāvidhaṃ// asthīdantasakeśaromavikṛtaṃ carmāvṛtaṃ lomasaṃ antaḥplīhajakṛdvapoṣṇarasanair ebhiś citaṃ durbalai/ majjāsnāyunibaddhayantrasadṛśaṃ māṃsena śobhīkṛtaṃ nānāvyādhiprakīrṇasokakalilaṃ kṣuttarṣasaṃpīḍitaṃ//
(Rhys Davids 1975, p. 189
): uggahanimittaṃ virūpaṃ bībhacchaṃ bheravadassanaṃ hutvā upaṭṭhāti
. (Ñāṇamoli 2010, p. 178
). The acquired sign (uggahanimitta
) is contrasted with the sign of semblance (paṭibhāganimitta
), which does not fulfill the intended purpose.
, which dates back to at least the fourth century CE, cites this tradition from a sūtra
source. See (Shukla 1973, p. 198
): revata bhikṣur yogī yogācāro rāgacarita eva sa na śubhālambane cittam upanibadhnāti/ evam anurūpe ālambane cittam upanibadhnāti dveṣacarito vā punar maitryāṃ mohacarito vā idaṃ pratyayatāpratītyasamutpāde mānacarito dhātuprabhede/ sa ced revata sa bhikṣur yogī yogācāro vitarkacarita eva ānāpānasmṛtau cittam upanibadhnāti/
. The Chinese translation of Xuanzang in the Taishō edition of the Chinese Tripiṭaka is edited in Takakusu and Watanabe
), hereafter T., in no. 1579 XXX 428a11–17: 謂彼比丘若唯有貪行。應於不淨緣安住於心。如是名為於相稱緣安住其心。若唯有瞋行。應於慈愍安住其心。若唯有癡行。應於緣性緣起安住其心。若唯有慢行。應於界差別安住其心。若唯有尋思行。應於阿那波那念安住其心。如是名為於相稱緣安住其心. For the Tibetan translation, see the Sde dge edition of the Tibetan Bstan ’gyur, no. 4036 in the catalog of (Ui et al. 1934
), Sems tsam, vol. dzi
77a4–7. This sūtra
source involves a conversation between the Buddha and his disciple Revata. The editor of the Sanskrit text, Shukla, notes (197n1), “This dialogue is not traced in the Pāli canons, the Mahāyāna Sūtras, the Prajñāpāramitās, and other canons of the Buddhists extant in Sanskrit and Pāli. It seems that this forms part of the Sanskrit Tripiṭaka of the Mahāsāṃghikas or of any other sect of the Buddhist order, whose canonical literature is not extant.”
(Shukla 1973, p. 334
): samabhāgacaritasya tu yatra priyārohitā tatra tena prayoktavyaṃ kevalaṃ cittasthitaye na tu caritaviśuddhaye/ yathā samabhāgacarita evaṃ mandarajasko veditavyaḥ/
; T. 1579 XXX 446a2–5: 若等分行補特伽羅。隨所愛樂攀緣彼境勤修加行。如是勤修唯令心住非淨其行。如等分行補特伽羅。薄塵行者當知亦爾.
(Pradhan 1967, p. 337
): tatra punaś caturviddho rāgaḥ varṇarāgaḥ saṃsthānarāga sparśarāga upacārarāgaś ca/ prathamasya pratipakṣeṇa vinīlakādyākārālambanām aśubhāṃ varjayanti dvitīyasya vikhāditakavikṣiptālambanāṃ tṛtīyasya vipaṭumakaṃ pūyanibaddhāsthyālambanāṃ caturthasya niśceṣṭamṛtakāyālambanām/
. T. 1558 XXIX 117b22–28: 然貪差別略有四種。一顯色貪。二形色貪。三妙觸貪。四供奉貪。緣青瘀等修不淨觀治第一貪。緣彼食等修不淨觀治第二貪。緣蟲蛆等修不淨觀治第三貪。緣屍不動修不淨觀治第四貪. Vasubandhu goes on to say that the meditation on the skeleton is a remedy for all four kinds of attachment. Cf. (Rhys Davids 1975, pp. 193–94
; Ñāṇamoli 2010, p. 182
) on specific desires that the meditation on each of the ten states of the decomposed body is meant to dispel.
(Python 1973, pp. 30–31
): shA ri’i bu byang chub sems dpa’ sems dpa’ chen po mi skye ba’i chos la bzod pa thob pas ni/ gtong ba gsum la gnas par bya’o// gsum gang zhe na/ ’di lta ste/ gtong ba dang/ gtong ba chen po dang shin tug tong ba la/ de la gtong ba ni rgyal srid yongs su gtong ba’o// gtong ba chen po ni chung ma dang/ bu dang bu mo yongs su gtong ba’o// shin tu gtong ba ba ni mgo dang/ lag pa dang/ rkang pa dang/ mig dang lpags pa dang/ rus pa yongs su gtong ba ste/
. The earliest Chinese translation of the sūtra
is Foshuo pini jueding jing
佛說決定毘尼經 (T. 325 = Vinayaviniścayasūtra
). The relevant passage is found in T. 325 XII 28b29–c2: 得無生忍諸菩薩等。當應修習三種布施。何等為三。王位布施。妻子布施。頭目布施。如是三種名為大施名極妙施. The translator is named as Dunhuang Sanzang 燉煌三藏. Python follows the general identification of the name as referring to Dharmarakṣa (竺法護) and dates the translation to the period between 265 and 313. For the dating of the text and the first Chinese translation, see (Python 1973, pp. 3–4
). The Taishō text of T. 325 is reproduced in ibid., pp. 73–78.
s and emotions (bhāva
) are treated in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Nāṭyaśāstra
. See (Krishnamoorthy 1992, vol. 1, pp. 254–378
). Selected parts of the two chapters, including illustrations of rasa
s’ realization through many contributing elements and an explanation of stable emotions as a category, are translated in (Pollock 2016, pp. 50–55
Ibid., p. 479.
As Ingalls has pointed out (ibid., pp. 216, 230), even the subclass of love in separation (vipralambha) is represented at least by two sections of “Women Offended” (21) and “Lady Parted from Her Lover” (22).
Aśvaghoṣa is thought to have lived in the first or second century CE. See (Tzohar 2019, pp. 188–89
). As Pollock notes, Nāṭyaśāstra
can only be “vaguely assigned to the early centuries (perhaps third century) CE.” See (Pollock 2016, p. 47
The Buddhist engagement with the alaṃkāra
theory was largely centered around the study and interpretation of Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa
. It began with the Sanskrit commentary by Ratnaśrijñāna, a tenth-century Buddhist monk from Sri Lanka, and continued with the massive reception of the Kāvyādarśa
in Tibetan cultural regions and the Sinhalese adaptation of Daṇḍin’s work. Ratnaśrījñāna’s commentary is edited in (Thakur and Jha 1957
). A new edition of the third chapter is available in (Dimitrov 2011
). Another key text on rhetoric used in Southeast Asia is the Pali work Subodhālaṃkāra
As Singh points out, disgust is also featured in the description of the sandy bank of the sea when Kandarpaketu was about to commit suicide, as love in separation reaches its climax. See (Singh 1993, p. 69
For a profile of rasas featured in the Vāsavadattā, see ibid., pp. 63–72.
For a list of these Majjhimanikāya sutta
s that deal with the Buddha’s renunciation and his enlightenment and a summary of their contents, see (Lamotte 1988, pp. 648–50
For a recent survey of the textual history of Lalitavistara
and scholarship, see (He 2012, pp. 3–10
While the Sanskrit text that we have may be from a later age, these key elements from the Lalitavistara are found in the earliest extant Chinese translation of the sūtra made at the beginning of the fourth century. See T. 186 III 504c15–505b9.
See (Goldman 2000, pp. 105–16
). Some of the earlier verses in the episode in the Buddhacarita
, such as 5.49, 5.54, and 5.55, are clearly describing sleeping girls’ beauty. With 5.59–5.61, the disgraceful reaches its peak.
18.63. See (Johnston 1975, Part I
(Sanskrit text), p. 141, Part II (English translation), p. 117).
The depiction of women occupies Buddhacarita 3.13–3.21 and 3.23–3.24 of the verse sequence identified in the last note.
Buddhacarita 3.21, 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17.
(Tubb 1985, p. 150
). The developed rasa
theory emphasizes the use of suggestion, and it also follows Bharata’s well-known aphorism, which states that “rasa
arises from the conjunction of factors, reactions, and transitory emotions.” See (Pollock 2016, p. 50
3.43, 3.45, 3.58, and 3.60. (Johnston 1998, vol. 1, pp. 26, 28, vol. 2, pp. 39, 42
; Olivelle 2008, pp. 74–75, 78–81
3.37c: kuto ratir me
; 3.47: me … ratibhyaḥ pratyāhataṃ saṃkucatīva cetaḥ
. Cf. 3.62cd. (Johnston 1998, vol. 1, pp. 25, 26, 29, vol. 2, pp. 38, 40, 43
; Olivelle 2008, pp. 74–75, 78–79, 82–83
(Masson and Patwardhan 1969, p. 93
): samyagjñānaprakṛtiḥ śānto vigatecchanāyako bhavati/ samyagjñānaṃ viṣaye tamaso rāgasya cāpagamāt// janmajarāmaraṇāditrāso vairasyavāsanā viṣaye/ sukhaduḥkhayor anicchādveṣāv iti tatra jāyante//
(Masson and Patwardhan 1969, p. 94n1
). Like Abhinavagupta, Namisādhu recognizes right knowledge as the stable emotion. For him, vibhāva
consists of sense objects. Fear of birth and so on, disgust, and indifference are reactions.
(Ingalls 1965, p. 385
are the common candidates for the stable emotion of śāntarasa
. In terms of textual sources, Tubb has shown that śama
is presented in the interpolated passage in the Nāṭyaśāstra
that deals with śāntarasa
, while other critics prefer nirveda
’s stable emotion, borrowing it from the list of transitory emotions presented in the older portion of the work, where it is listed as the first of these emotions. See (Tubb 1985, p. 146
Vidyākara has been lauded for exhibiting no sectarianism in his work. See (ibid., p. 31).
It is worth noting that disgust and renunciation, two key topics treated in this essay, are represented here.
Daniel Ingalls has said that sensuousness is a quality of high Sanskrit poetry that is difficult for Buddhist poets to emulate because of their religious beliefs. See (Ingalls 1965, pp. 58–59
). However, Buddhist literary texts, unlike Buddhist scriptures, contain many instances of sensuous and erotic descriptions. Among the exceptions noted by Ingalls, Aśvaghoṣa has shown an interest in different ways of portraying women. Examples from the Buddhacarita
referred to in this study include the disgusting side of the sleeping girls (fifth canto), attempts at seduction being ignored (fourth canto), and the description of women in an urban setting that transitions into the episode of renunciation. In canto twenty-two, the subdued demeanor of Āmrapālī in religious devotion demonstrates yet another form of feminine beauty. In the Saundarananda
, the erotic unfolds in such ways as the conjugal love between husband and wife, attachment to the former lover as a distraction to the ascetic life, and attraction to heavenly maidens. In the Nāgānanda
, we encounter an amplified treatment of the love and marriage of Jīmūtavāhana identified as a bodhisattva, who later sacrifices himself to save nāga
s. The love between Jīmūtavāhana and Malayavatī, however, is known to adaptations of this legend in the Kathāsaritsāgara
(Ibid., pp. 524, 527–28). The example that Ānandavardhana provides, which Abhinavagupta comments on, features the intervention of the heroic in the conflict between the erotic and loathsome in a single versified sentence.
3.23: dhanyāsya bhāryeti śanair avocañ śuddhair manobhiḥ khalu nānyabhāvāt
. (Johnston 1998, vol. 1, p. 23, vol. 2, p. 36
; Olivelle 2008, pp. 66–67
). In the following verse, the women pay the prince their respect, thinking that he “will devote himself to dharma after giving up the royal splendor.” The Buddhacarita
presents the future Buddha’s renunciation as predestined, with the sights of old age, sickness, and death and his departure from the palace being arranged by the gods. The theme of women’s modesty is developed all along in the procession episode in stanzas 3.13 and 3.17.
Some modern readers have expressed unease at what they perceived to be altruism being carried to excess, but the subject appears to be endearing to Asian Buddhists and some literary critics.
Sa skya Paṇḍita mentions “Skyes pa’i rabs
) as a work (or works) that he has studied. See (Sa paṇ Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan 2004, p. 85
). Both Matthew Kapstein and Jonathan Gold take the word to mean Jātaka
of Āryaśūra]. See (Kapstein 2003, p. 779
; Gold 2008, p. 154
). Their speculation is reasonable since Āryaśūra’s Jātakamālā
was translated during the early dissemination of Buddhism in Tibet, and its wide influence in Tibet has been demonstrated in Kapstein’s and Dan Martin’s studies listed in the “references” section.
(Steiner 1997, p. 127
). Harṣa’s own words that his work is dependent on a vidyādharajātaka
, which have been used to support the position that the drama is based on a Buddhist exemplar, are cited here. However, Steiner proceeds to argue in the following pages that the author does not mean by jātaka
a separate Buddhist work. A Buddhist text translated into Chinese by Zhi Qian 支謙, who was active mainly in the first half of the third century, contains the narrative of the bodhisattva in a former life who saves nāga
s from Garuḍa. See T. 153 III 68b29–69a16. This story was recently referred to in the discussion of the source of the Nāgānanda
in (Zhang 2018, pp. 342–43
). The narrative contains some elements of the Jīmūtavāhana legend, but is not yet recognizable as its earlier version, as the character who saves the nāga
s is the king of nāga
s, who does not sacrifice himself. The combination of this source and the fact that other adaptations of the Jīmūtavāhana legend contains references to the hero as a bodhisattva shows that we may not have in our possession the full record of the history of the legend.
Steiner lists places where the hero is referred to as a bodhisattva in the Nāgānanda
, Kathāsaritsāgara, Bṛhatkathāmañjarī
, and Avadānakalpalatā
. He follows Bosch in regarding the Jīmūtavāhana legend as not Buddhist originally, but he appears to entertain the possibility that the legend in the Bṛhatkathā
was already Buddhist. See (Steiner 1997, p. 128nn4–5
See (Hahn 1970
; Ghoṣa et al. 1991, pp. I, VI–X
). Authors who are sympathetic to Buddhism—in the case of Harṣa, a known supporter of Buddhism—may compose Buddhist works even if they are not Buddhists themselves. Kṣemendra’s Avadānakapalatā
is a case in point.
There is no doubt that such a study would be useful. Additional materials available for such a study include Kashmirian adpations of the Jīmūtavāhana story (Kathāsaritsāgara, chapters 22 and 90; Bṛhatkathāmañjarī 4.36–109 and 9.766–935; and Avadānakalpalatā, pallava 108) written several centuries later, which present such a project with another set of methodological problems. If the Nāṭyaśāstra is used for the analysis of rasas in the Nāgānanda, śāntarasa and the new subtype of the heroic rasa, dayāvīra, would not come into the purview. Ideas about the conflict of rasas would also be rudimentary.
As noted above, Malayavatī is known to other adaptations of the Jīmūtavāhana legend such as the Kathāsaritsāgara and Avadānakalpalatā.
4.22 in the Tibetan (in the edition cited below), Nepalese, and South Indian recensions. For the Tibetan translation, see (Bhattacharya 1957, p. 173
). For the Sanskrit of the South Indian recension, see (Śâstrî 1917, p. 224
); the Sanskrit and English translation are found in (Skilton 2009, pp. 162, 163
). For the North Indian recension, see (Ghoṣa et al. 1991, p. 53
The critical edition of the Tibetan text from the fourth to sixth acts made by Roland Steiner (formerly Roland Pafeen) in his unpublished M.A. thesis submitted to the University of Bonn in 1989, Kritische Edition der Akte IV bis VI der tibetischen Übertragung von Harṣadevas Schauspiel Nāgānanda
, is not available to me currently. A recent reproduction of Gaṇapati’s edition of the South Indian recension with English translation (Skilton 2009
) will also be referenced.
(Warder 1983, pp. 54–55
). The red garments that Jīmūtavāhana receives from Malayavatī’s mother allow him to disguise himself as the sacrificial victim. Moreover, the goddess Gaurī, of whom Malayavatī is a devotee, revives Jīmūtavāhana after he died from the wound inflicted by Garuḍa. The goddess is a Hindu element of the drama, but it can be accommodated in the framework of a Buddhist jātaka
story as it is not uncommon for a self-sacrificing bodhisattva to be rescued by a Hindu god such as Indra in these stories.
(Masson and Patwardhan 1969, p. 118
): tat siddhaṃ dayālakṣaṇo ity utsāho ’tra pradhānam
. Translation in (ibid., p. 137). Utsāha
, or enthusiasm, is the stable emotion of heroism.
The poetics section of the Mkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo
is divided into a study of selected contents of Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa
and the author’s rasa
interpretation. On Sa skya Paṇḍita’s paraphrase of materials from the first and second chapters of the Kāvyādarśa
, see (Dimitrov 2002, pp. 26–31
section of Sa skya Paṇḍita’s Mkhas pa rnams ’jug pa’i sgo
is discussed and translated in (Gold 2008, pp. 119–30, 173–81
). The Tibetan original is found in (Sa paṇ Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan 2004, pp. 103–11
). Gold has noted that Sa paṇ does not seem to have maintained a distinction between rasa
s and other emotions (bhāva
). (Gold 2008, p. 120
). Therefore, he does not speak of how stable and transitory emotions, reactions, and factors work together to bring out rasa
Gold comments on the problem of rasas that have no dharma varieties in (ibid., pp. 125–26). The Vessantara Jātaka in Pāli is more elaborate and better-known in Theravāda Buddhism and to modern readers. Sa paṇ, however, is more likely referring to the Sanskrit Viśvaṃtarajātaka (no. 9) in Āryaśūra’s Jātakamālā.
(Warder 1983, p. 57
). Warder reports here that the commentator Śivarāma has shown that all the rasa
s are featured in the Nāgānanda
Valor or vīrya
is an important Buddhist term that relates to heroism in aesthetics in several ways. Valor or energetic exertion is one of the essential bodhisattva practices or perfections. Semantically, vīrya
is the essential quality that belongs to a hero or vīra
. While enthusiasm or utsāha
is the stable emotion of the heroic rasa
, it is the concept that defines valor in Buddhism, where it is sometimes described metaphorically in militaristic terms such as putting on armor. Buddhist texts sometimes explain valor in terms of bodhisattvas’ dedication to difficult practices such as giving their bodies and limbs as a gift over a long period of time. For one example of the scriptural passages that show these connections, see (Python 1973, p. 28
Third line in 6.2 in the Tibetan edition, 5.15 in the South Indian editions, and 5.90 in the North Indian edition cited above. The South Indian text reads: gātraṃ yan na viluptam eṣa pulakas tatra sphuṭo lakṣyate. Skilton’s translation (p. 191) is adopted here. For an additional case of the experience of pleasure while giving away a part of the body, see the Maitrībalajātaka, the eighth story in Āryaśūra’s Jātakamālā.
Nāgānanda 4.22 in the Tibetan and South Indian editions and 4.71 in the North Indian edition used and cited in this essay.
Corresponding to these narratives, Langenberg also sees “two typical modes of Buddhist disgust talk.” For her, “[o]ne depicts the inner foulness of the sexualized female (deceptively covered over by perfumed skin), the other the grisly nature of the dying, decomposing, or mutilated body.” To them, she adds a third type of Buddhist disgust text, which, exemplified by the Garbhāvakrāntisūtra
, is “focused on the reproductive female body and its functions.” See (Langenberg 2017, p. 87
). Langenberg’s classification is not based on how disgust works with the predominant rasa
of a narrative. She points out that in the Garbhāvakrāntisūtra
the loathsome rasa
also leads to the rasa
of peace (ibid., p. 89).
may be less explicit about the use of the repulsiveness meditation as a model for the description of the sleeping girls, but verse 5.60 shows that there is tacit identification of sleep with death when it states that the maidens are “lying as if they are dead” (śayitā gatāsukalpāḥ
). In the parallel versions in the Mahāvastu
, the identification of the scene of sleeping girls with the cemetery is explicit. See (Senart 1890, p. 159
; Jones 1952, p. 155
; Lefmann  1977, pp. 205, 206
; Foucher 2003, p. 75
). See also Buddhacarita
5.65. Recall also the description of the cemetery-like environment in Nāgānanda
4.17 cited above, which presages Jīmūtavāhana’s self-sacrifice.
In addition to the Indian discussions mentioned above, Sa paṇ also discusses the compatibility (or the lack thereof) of different rasa
s in the Mkhas pa ’jug pa’i sgo
. See (Sa paṇ Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan 2004, pp. 106–11
; Gold 2008, pp. 126–30, 176–79
). Sa paṇ discusses emotions that are compatible and not compatible with the repulsive in (Sa paṇ Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan 2004, pp. 106, 108
; Gold 2008, pp. 177, 178
). In this context, Sa paṇ states with supporting reasons that the erotic/passionate, tragic/compassionate, and peaceful are not compatible with the repulsive: mi sdug pa la sgeg pa dang/ snying rje zhi ba’i rgyan mi sbyar/
. Gold has shown that the compassionate and peaceful are two particularly important emotions for Sa paṇ. However, Sa paṇ’s discussion of the peaceful is peculiar in not identifying it as the emotion associated with the pursuit of a renouncer and in considering it to be in conflict with disgust. On these two points, he disagrees with Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta. Sa paṇ’s compassion also shifts from the Indian tradition’s karuṇa
as the tragic rasa